UPDATE: Tweets on if this means anything at all- Still seems pretty inconclusive.

How long is Brady gonna wait to announce this? I get making Bama prepare for Fitz and Rawls/Smith until they know for sure, but 5 days before the game you think they would have announced suspensions already.

A disclaimer to start: I don't have much of an opinion on the Fitz thing. I don't think he should be suspended just to appease the fanbase's sense of moral outrage, and I haven't talked to or dealt with the kid. So I'm not upset with Hoke.

I disagree that it's about appeasing the fanbase's sense of moral outrage. It's about reaffirming that drunk driving is an incredibly serious thing. As a society, we're still pretty terrible at recognizing that.

Sanctions against them (or the absence of sanctions) carry more weight than punishment of random people no one has ever heard of. That's one of the reasons that authorities went after Michael Vick so hard on the dog fighting charges. Getting behind the wheel while drunk is something that potentially comes with a lengthy prison term (one that we're, in my opinion, too reluctant to hand out). Given that, it's sure as hell enough to warrant missing a football game.

Put another way: if Touissaint were charged with rape, murder, arson, aggravated battery, or vehicular homicide, I'm guessing people would overwhelmingly agree he shouldn't play (and would be furious at Hoke if he were allowed to suit up). Letting him play says a DUI is closer to fighting in the club or scooter violations than it is to other very serious crimes. I think that's wrong.

Yes, if Toussaint had done something other than what he did, something that required an intention to harm other people, than people would view it differently.

And yes, I think that driving with .08 BAC is closer to a moving violation than intentionally murdering somebody.

My point is that there are sanctions on this earth other than playing time on 9/1. Not using that specific punishment does not mean punishment didn't occur.

I should clarify: I wouldn't oppose not playing him either. I'm not saying he should play. I'm saying other forms of punishment exist other than whether he is playing against Alabama. Saying that's the ONLY form of acceptable punishment is calling for a Public Punishment - which has more to do with PR than it does with punishment.

On your specific one, I think drunk driving is closer to murder than it is to driving with a broken taillight. Cierre Wood got more games for smoking pot than Michael Floyd got for getting behind the wheel in a condition where he might kill someone. That's a problem, and it's one I hoped Hoke would treat differently (he still might, obviously, given that Touissaint hasn't actually suited up yet and Hoke says the depth chart doesn't indicate actual starters).

I'm not terribly familiar with Wood's situation. But I'd argue that you should come up with a set punishment for DUI - not use Toussaint's as of yet unkown punishment compared to Wood's as your argument. In other words - what does the severity of Wood's punishment have to do with how harshly Toussaint is punished? If they decided to chop Wood's index finger off, would that change your opinion of what Toussaint warrants?

should operate at least somewhat on a curve. "Crime X is more serious than crime Y, and thus deserves a bigger punishment." You can pick any minor offense you want, but the comparison of Wood's punishment to Floyd's serves as a useful barometer for how college coaches tend to view DUIs in comparison to other crimes.

Being a bit of a zealot on this issue, my set punishment for a DUI would be kicking a guy off the team, but I realize that's on the extreme side, and I'm fine with Hoke not doing that. But the set punishment for a DUI has to be something meaningful, both because of the associated risks and because of how common it is for people to get behind the wheel while drunk. And, in my view, it has to be more serious than the punishment for an offense that harms no one other than (arguably) the offender himself. Yes, that's using a player to make a "public statement," but the benefits of being a public figure come with downsides too. This is one of them.

Using Wood, Floyd, or anyone else as a barometer implies that how their punishment was handled was correct. I'm not going to argue about the danger/innocence of pot, but what Brian Kelly does isn't neccesarily a useful benchmark.

I whole-heartedly disagree with the idea that a kid should be kicked off the team, but I'm obviously not going to dissuade you from that.

"And, in my view, it has to be more serious than the punishment for an offense that harms no one other than (arguably) the offender himself".

but Drunk Driving DOES'NT harm anyone.

It has a hell of a chance of contributing to harm however, and thats why it's serious.
but you can't tack on every possible "what If" and consider it a fair punishment.
Unlawfully discharging a firearm and 1st degree murder are different charges with good reason; they take into account the inherent danger, the intent, & the consequeses.

But you are more than a bit of a zealot on this issue, you're a complete zealot. There's nothing wrong with that and if you want to loby to increase the legal penalties for drunk driving thats great. But honestly, I'm pretty sick of the game of football being turned into the prime venue for modern day morality plays.

It's interesting to consider the news story I heard today of a guy who changed the tail of his plane to make it faster, which also made it less stable. He ended up out of control, crashed, and killed 7 people. It's an awful tragedy, but let's suppose there was no crash, or a minor one, and no one was killed. No one would be calling for this guy to have a lengthy prison term like some people do for DUIs, even though it was no less dangerous.

"Closer to murder" than to driving with a broken taillight? There's a reason society gives almost zero jail time to first DUI offnders--because it is closer to a broken tallight as long as no one got hurt--and it's not because we don't take it seriously enough. And BTW people who drive with a .08 or .10 are not "lucky" they didn't kill anyone--the vast, vast majority of time they do so, nothing happens. Lastly, just because football players are "high profile" members of society, is no reason to treat them differently or with more harshness than regular members of society. "Sorry, I know a normal person would only get a fine and suspended license, but you play football for Michigan so..."

His offense was NOT a light one--but that does not mean that Hoke is not capable of punishing him the entire last month since this happened, in ways we have no way of knowing.

as long as no one gets hurt is giving someone a pass based on something at least partially (and sometimes largely) out of their control. The reason we criminalize drunk driving as a separate offense from vehicular homicide (or whatever) is becaues we need to discourage people from driving drunk in the first place. Once they do that, what follows is largely just a matter of chance.

Tough to call, which is right, are we just being reactionary? If he were just an ordinary student, would he be prevented from participation in extracurricular events because of this? Would he be banned from theatre, music, or art if he was a fine arts major? Or even intramural sports, clubs or other activities? If you are talking scholarships; would you lose an academic, or artistic scholarship from this action?

Is it just the notoriety? Not trying to defend their actions, just want to consider the question. These guys always get held to the standard, “they shouldn't get extra benefits than ordinary students”; but, shouldn't they get the same allowances?

There's no due process for player punishment, and this isn't a court of law. It's pretty cut and dry, Coach Hoke asks him whether he did it or not (or he can go off of the breathelizer test) and that's that.

Exactly. Have some faith in Hoke to make the right choices. If Hoke plays Fitz, I have no doubt whatsoever that he performed way more restution for the crime than you or I could ever know, and has worked himself out of hock.

This is NOTHING like MSU. At MSU, players are reinstated the DAY they get out of jail. There is no chance for them to do any team-specific work for restitution. Fitz has had over a month to run stairs, ace tests, watch film, or do whatever else Hoke cooked up to teach him his lesson. If he plays, I have faith that Hoke has made sure he understands consequences.

If you're looking things up on the Internet, make sure you find the article when Dantonio announced his suspension. That's right, it was after the season. Just because he didn't play in games during the season doesn't mean he was suspended. His actual suspension came after the season, unless Dantonio just decided not to mention it during the season. So basically, the state suspended Winston for Dantonio.

Rucker gets out of jail on a Thursday or Friday..when asked if he would play against Iowa on Saturday Dantonio said It was up to Rucker to decide. We all know how that ended lol

And your really going to come on here and brag about how Winston was punished with a 3 game suspension? He fractured a hockey players skull..guilty of multiple counts of assault on MSU students no less. The guy should have never been let back on the team and he burned Dantonio in the end for doing it

Hoke has already proven he is willing to punish guys ..Kellen Jones, Stonum, heck Furman was suspended all spring for something he didnt even do. Name 1 time Dantonio has given a harsh punishment that would hurt MSU's team (unless he had no choice like with Winston or Sims)

Whatever happens wiith Fitz, it's not even close to the same situation as MSU so get lost.

Hey, remember when this happened and everyone on the MSU boards was taking issue with the hockey player because they couldn't believe he just walked outside of his house and was cold cocked by Winston? Remember when he had brain damage and there was a story on how he had trouble studying or concentrating because of said brain damage and your entire fanbase was taking the side of Winston, even after reading in the article that Winston had never even apologized or talked to the guy he blind sided with a haymaker? Yeah, get the fuck back on RCMB. They need some more Dantonio blowing over there. Not quite enough of it on their boards.

that logic? Are you saying that driving drunk and not killing someone is the same as driving drunk and killing someone? And how do you feel people should be punished when caught texting and driving..since that also has a chance to kill somoene. Is running a red light the same if you clear it or you kill someone? /rant

Appeasing the fanbase's sense of outrage and moral superiority is not, in my opinion, a good reason to not play him.

That said, I think a person in Toussaint's position needs to be reminded that being irresponsible has consequences. I do not know what consequences Toussaint has been made to suffer, however. As such, I will avoid any opinion on the matter.

An "everyone gets one warning" policy seems dangerous. If you're a player who knows he has a get out of jail free card in your back pocket, you're willing to take chances that you wouldn't take with stronger beavhior expectations. The last thing we need is a bunch of guys getting their first DUIs/whatever and then getting on the field the next week. With the inevitable negative media coverage, Hoke's poop suddenly wouldn't seem quite so golden, which could seriously affect recruiting and other things.

I'm not sure we're talking about a "everyone gets one warning" policy. We don't know what type of punishment Hoke gave them while they were trying to get back on the field. When Stonum had his DUI (when Hoke took over), he had to come in early every morning and do sled pushes and things that. If Hoke had Fitz and Clark do those type of things to get back in his good graces, then are you still in the must suspend him camp?

Furthermore, I think the timing of the arrests makes it a very sensitive issue. If this had happened during the Spring, they would have just missed practices, but they probably could have gotten everything sorted out for fall camp/the season. If this had happened during the season, they're probably missing a game or two, easily. This is sort of the gray area where you wonder if they've been punished enough to get in the game. This happened before fall camp. This didn't happen during a game week. It's hard to say.

I understand your arguments and they're reasonable. I reserve the right to change this opinion, but for now, I'd be inclined to keep virtually anyone who gets in legitimate legal trouble out of at least a half of a game just because of the "it's a privilege to play for Michigan" cliche and the reality that it's not very hard to not get arrested. In fact, I'm not getting arrested right now.

I'm also in the camp that thinks that a DUI is a pretty serious deal, where the difference between drunk driving that doesn't harm anyone and drunk driving that does is often blind luck.

And to answer your question a little more directly... I don't know this, but I suspect that what really stings players is lost playing time (and the consequences for the team), not having more strenuous, inconvenient workouts than their teammates.

Yeah. I mean, there is definitely a Michigan ethos of not only winning, but winning the right way that you don't really want to usurp long-term to get short-term results. I think that Hoke understands that, but at the same time, he's not going to let that be a reason to not get a potential competitive advantage (the gamesmanship of not announcing). We really won't find that out until later this week if this is true.

I get what you're saying, but it just doesn't seem just to me to single out athletes as people that should be punished above and beyond what the law is doing. The law exists for a reason, and that is to deal out fair punishment for crimes.

I don't think that Hoke's role in this is to punish Fitz. Rather, his job is to steer Fitz in the right direction so that he doesn't commit the mistake again. It is my understanding that Fitz has been worked through in camp. If he demonstrates to Hoke that he has changed his path and will work to never make the mistake again, then why NOT play him? To say that Hoke must punish Fitz means that we deem to law to be inadequate and now we're getting into vigilante justice, which I don't think is right. I think Fitz should play if he has demonstrated that he has learned from his mistake. If he messes up again and breaks Hoke's trust, he's lost a year of playing time (a la Stonum). Another time, and he's gone.

However, I do agree that the punishment for a first time drunk driving offense needs to be greater. As of now, a first time offense makes insurance for a college student nearly impossible to afford, so I don't see Fitz driving for a long time. He's going to have to work very hard to pay the fines for the offense. Maybe on top of that, we should have everyone who gets caught get temporarily laid off from their jobs? That's what really stings, right, being unable to do your livelihood.

How the moral tide has turned--welcome to big boys football where you don't throw a season away because of a mistake by a young man. Make all the excuses all you want, UM has just proven that the moral high ground is a level playing field.

For example, many UM fans site Rucker playing right out of jail. Here's the facts. He was arrested following the UM game. He was suspended for the Illinois game. He then went to jail. After getting out of jail, he did not start the following game 5 days later. He did play in it, however. So, yes, our guy got suspended. Also, Sims was suspended for the rest of the season for the stolen laptops.

So, if your guys play, yes, UM and MSU do, indeed, play by different rules.

That is a blatant over reaction, in my opinion. I’ve said this before, the spectrum of DUI charges are too often grouped together. You can get a DUI on a bicycle or a riding mower. Everything needs to be taken in perspective.

If he were joy riding down 94 with a bottle of vodka in his hand, that would probably result in his removal from the team. If he were having a beer while mowing the grass on a tractor, he would probably get laughed at for being dumb. This situation is somewhere in the middle and it is possible the severity of his crime isn’t what you think, despite it being a DUI. Consider the differences. Unless you know the story, which Hoke probably knows as well as anyone else, then it is difficult for you to determine a just penalty.

He also wasn't joy riding down 94 taking pulls. I said it was somewhere in the middle and Hoke has to punish accordingly. From the one report I saw he was extremely compliant with the arresting officer which leads me to believe he was not much over the legal limit, and hopefully not putting other lives in danger to the level that the DUI sterotype leads on.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. He should be punished for the crime, for letting the team down, etc. but as others have said he might not warrant missing game time if he has paid his dues in other ways.

Then you might as well call up your courthouse and rip their books to shreds because the job of punishment falls on the courts, not some guy named Brady Hoke who happens to teach Fitz. That's like saying any student who gets a DUI should be given additional punishment like Academic Probation and all your first exams are Fs by Mary Sue Coleman. Let the courts do their jobs, and Hoke will do his own - guiding Fitz in the right direction so he never makes the mistake again.

And believe me, there are many ways of guiding Fitz other than making him miss 40 minutes of football on one day, something very inconsequential in the long run.

As long as he's on the team (suspended or not) he is the #1 RB on the depth chart, so it's still premature to say the sky is falling. That said, I don't like this and will be disappointed if Fitz is on the field against Bama. Even if Fitz has done three Divine Comedies' worth of purgatory behind the scenes, he should still sit to send a message that no one is above the rules and violating them has consequences for the rest of the team b/c they are all accountable to each other.

(hell, Will Hagerup was suspended for the 2010 OSU game and for those of us who were able to stomach watching it, we coulda used any and all help in our punting that game.)

You are *THIS* close (/holds fingers close together) to the banhammer. You're welcome to stay, but you've gotta stop being such a f*cking troll. Contribute something DERP-free, or you're gone like Denard running 87 yards. Or Gallon running free in the secondary. Or Tate Forcier right up the middle. Or...

I'm sure coach Hoke has been watching him during summer practice. May be he made strides. We don't know, he may have had to attend some AA meetings? I would still expect Hoke to sit him out for a quarter or a the first half of the AL game!

This has to be Hoke trolling the media again, right? There's no way he lets this slip out before announcing a decision unless the depth chart is meaningless for the purposes of Toussaint and Clark in re: the 'Bama game. I'm sure he's at practice having a good laugh over this.

Actually, on that note, you know what would be pretty brilliant? Floating a false rumor that Denard won't be able to play because of injury, suspension, or whatever. I'm skeptical that Alabama's game prep depends too much on whether Fitz or Rawls starts, but I have to think that it would change fundamentally if we had Bellomy or Gardner out there instead of Denard.

Saban, if you're reading this, I have rock solid sources indicating that Denard can't go this week. Oh, and Michigan's base offense will be the fake FG. Oh, and we're trying out a 1-8-2 defense. It's gonna be crazy.

I get making Bama prepare for Fitz and Rawls/Smith until they know for sure, but 5 days before the game you think they would have announced suspensions already.

Disagree completely. If the goal is to keep Alabama guessing (debabtable whether or not it is), then you don't announce the suspension at all until moments before the game. This is not unusual/unprecedented. Much like injuries that coaches say are a "gametime decision," you'll see players suddenly disclosed to be sitting based on a violation of unspecified team rules.

This depth chart means nothing until an official announcement by the coaches. At this point, it looks like they're not going to make an announcement, so we'll just have to wait until Saturday afternoon to find out.

We're all a little overzealous here. The number one thing I'm seeing in the way of complaints is, "We'll be no different from MSU or OSU." Really? You think our decisioins should be made solely on keeping the "moral high ground" over these programs? You think doling out extra punishments has anything to do with the moral high ground?

No. In fact, should be contantly punish plyers above and beyond what is necessary to teach them a proper lesson about accountability, that DETRACTS from our moral standing. They used to cut off theive's hands. Then they figured out that's more than what's necessary. Not every thief is a recidivist. Some just made an honest mistake, and the appropriate jail term or fine will teach them. Do you want to go back to every shop owner carrying a leather strap and scimitar?

Hoke keeps program punishments within the program, and we do not know what Fitz and or Clark has had to do or will have to do. So far, Hoke has run a squeaky clean program, and gotten rid of players that showed repeating behavior. This is the first time Fitz has been in trouble. If Hoke thinks he's paid his dues, it would only make us look like assholes to punish him more.

Oh, what a load of crap. Who in the heck gives a teaspoon of care what the media reports for one day? You think Fitz playing will forever brand us something different than what 133 years of football have branded us? You think Hoke or the coaching staff care what Ol' Herbie or Jim Rome bitch about? You think ANYONE does? They'll complain that it shows some depreciating values or something, and then next week a player will beat the crap out of his girlfriend at Arkansas and that'll be that.

We should be concerned with doing the right thing and looking ourselves in the mirror. Not hat SportsCenter thinks we should feel. That's why I bottom-line it like this.

Kid made a mistake. We don't know much about it. We know it was his first DUI and he did not cause an accident, such that he may not have been aware he was over the limit. We know that Hoke has been serving in-program punishment. We know Hoke has so far made only the best decisions and shown the desire to win the right way.

If you think that provies us enough information to condemn any decision the program might make, then you're not thinking things through very well.

There are a ton of people who think it's super funny to make fun of Sparty or ND b/c of their perceived leniency, so they know if Hoke plays Fitz/Clark they're going to have to come up with what will sound like a lame rationalization or take their lumps for being a dick in the past.

You've hit the nail on the head. Don't be a dick, or be willing to take your lumps.

The kids on every team are 18-22, and prone to making terrible decisions. And what it takes to get through to them will vary from individual to individual, so it doesn't make any sense to believe a cookie cutter discipline policy will be effective.

What's the reason for punishment? It's not to brag about your moral superiority to rival fans. It's to get through to the kid so he'll change his behavior in the future and become a better citizen. If that's best done some other way than suspension, then that's what I want the coach to do. If suspension or dismissal is the best way to get through to him, then that's what I want the coach to do.

Fitz is going to play. As much as some may hate it, we will never know what Hoke put him through behind the scenes. the penalties for his actions may continue throughout a considerable portion of the season. Who knows.

Fitz hasn't even been arraigned yet. Thats suppose to occur tomorrow. In all likelihood, he'll plead not guilty and the judicial process will start. We (most of us) have no idea regarding the circumstances surrounding his arrest. The person making the decision on his aviliability (Hoke) is in a position of superior knowledge. I will withhold judgment until all the facts are available. I suggest you all do the same.

I said this a few years back when Carson Butler was having troubles in the offseason and there was a possibility he wouldn't play: Trust in whatever the coaches are doing right now to determine if this player has learned from his mistakes and is committed to becoming a better man, and a better representative of his family and this university. While it's easy to say "Well we're doing what MSU, ND and SEC teams would do..." as soon as we hear a discplined player might play, remember this is Michigan (fergodsakes). I swear with every fiber of my being that the fire our staff is putting him through will be the test whether he's gets to put on his helmet on saturday, and you can bet that fire is hotter that any jail cell, community service or Sparty/ND decision making session.

Thusly, I feel no shame if Hoke lets Fitz play, because I will then know Fitz proved he deserves to.

fitz playing. if hoke thinks he's learned his lesson than i will leave it that. punishment doesn't always mean missing games. the punishment, in my view, should be whatever actually gets through to the person being punished. hoke has never come off as a win at all costs coach and i dont see that changing any time soon.

They're keeping it under wraps to keep Bama guessing. I find it difficult to believe the coaches still haven't come to a decision on Fitz. I'm sure they know exactly what they want to do. But why reveal it ahead of time?

I didn't know that being first on the depth chart implied that Fitz was starting vs. Alabama. It seems to me that Fitz can still be suspended the first game, or not start in the first game but play the second half, or yet some other option, while being listed first on the depth chart.

I am ambivalent as to whether or not Fitz plays. I am content to leave this in Hoke's hands.

I appreciate that Hoke doesn't seem too concerned about what the fanbase thinks. He is the coach and has the right to mete out the punishment he sees being fit, somewhat regardless of what other programs do or what the fanbase wants him to do.

In most workplaces I know, and school settings I know, receiving a DUI while not on the job does not necessarily result in any punishment whatsoever. The punishment received from the government (suspension of driving privileges, community service work, fines and penalties) does not directly correlate to any repercussions received at work or school.

I don't fully agree with the "higher standards" stuff regarding football players. If they are held to a higher standard, this should be spelled out clearly in the scholarship language, or by the NCAA, or the Big 10, etc. If there is a workplace where you can and will be fired for a DUI, this would generally be spelled out prior to your employment.

I don't drink, let alone drink and drive. (Caveat: communion wine.) I've never been hit by a drunk driver. None of my friends or relatives have been hit by drunk drivers. I appreciate what MADD has done in highlighting the dangers of drunk driving. Having said that, I do not put drunk driving on a par with murder. I don't want a society where we are punished because of the "potential" of doing harm. I have no problem with Fitz losing his license, having large fees and fines, having extreme conditions placed on future driving. But I do, to some degree, feel we have gone overboard with this. The reality is that you can't argue with someone who feels strongly about this, so I won't try. But drinking has been with us forever, and for most of civilization, there were no cars, so a drunk couldn't cause the same amount of danger.

However, I do think Fitz showed extremely poor judgement. Having drunk in campus bars and in my fraternity, I can't imagine driving after the same. I don't know if Fitz felt a sense of entitlement, but no one is entitled to drink and drive, and I'm glad that the Ann Arbor Police didn't give him a pass for his bad choices.

EDIT: After reading the transcript of Hoke's press conference, it seems highly probable that Fitz doesn't play on Saturday. I believe that Hoke is simply keeping private matters private . . . it isn't anyone's business what Hoke does in disciplining Fitz (& Clark.) This is consistent with the Fort Hoke mentality, where neither the coaches nor the players shoot off at the mouth more than necessary.

The Puritanism in this thread is astounding, and this coming from a person who thinks the US treats driving under the influence of alcohol entirely too lightly in general.

People of high character do make mistakes. What sets them apart is that they tend to learn from those mistakes. Fitz got lucky, he didn't hurt anyone and so this incident is just a personal mistake that he happened to get caught making. I have to wonder if all the comments talking about how severely he must be punished are coming from people who've never driven in a state of intoxication that would have resulted in legal repurcussions had they been caught.

So let's assume that Fitz and Hoke are both of high character. Fitz appears to Hoke to feel great remorse for the possible ramifications of his poor decision. In Hoke's opinion, Fitz is sincere and will fulfill whatever obligations the court requires of him; more importantly, Fitz sees it fit that Hoke punish him beyond the court's decision because this is Michigan fergodssake. And so since the incident, Fitz has been doing whatever punishment Hoke doles out and doing so without complaint.

I'm not cool with kids losing their ability to get federal student aid because they get caught with a little pot. I'm also not cool with a kid like Fitz being denied a real opportunity to showcase his talent against Alabama because he made a similar, illegal, mistake. And my guess is that had Fitz copped an attitude with Hoke about being a star and not getting punished, he'd be out for at least a game. Maybe we should attempt to give some credit to both people in this, or all go turn ourselves in for the punishments we surely deserve for things we've never gotten caught doing but did all the same.

Obviously Fitz will not play. It's apparent Hoke is keeping the Alabama coaches on their toes with his deflections.

And frankly, Hoke is making the right decision in a lot of respects. Firstly he's keeping internal team matters just that - internal. He's also not giving the 'Bama gameplan anything to work with, especially with the sparse film offerings Rawls has.

But more importantly Hoke is doing the right thing for Fitz. Fitz has a five-year-old child. He's a young man that made a mistake. What kind of message would it send to not only the fans and media (which I hope everyone realizes Hoke doesn't give two poops about) but Fitz's young child that deadly choices do not have serious consequences? When the child is grown and asks why he never got to play in that spectacle of a game in Dallas, hopefully Fitz will be able to use it to impart some serious life lessons. Hoke knows these things, he doesn't live nor operate in a vacuum.

Meinke jumped the gun with that tweet this morning but please, let this play out before convulsing.

Still don't get this attitude. So because he's a football player he shouldn't play due to a DUI? How does that make sense? Do we tell PhD candidates they can't research as part of their DUI punishment? Normal undergraduates aren't allowed to take midterms? I'm sure the kid paid the price over the summer and if he starts, he paid his dues (and will likely pay a cash fine). We don't know what he had to do. But asserting that he shouldn't be able to play is just ludicrous. Football and DUIs have nothing to do with one another, and it's certainly possible to "learn your lesson" without missing an actual game, and one that's pretty important for national recognition and NFL aspirations.

One could argue that texting and driving is at least as dangerous as driving drunk. In fact, I think I'd rather have someone driving around A2 with a 0.08 BAC than someone with an iphone conversation going on.

DUI is a big deal because someone (MADD) made a big deal about it. The risk of crash increases dramatically, but is still small. Speeding has a similar, but smaller impact. There is evidence that distracted driving actually has an even larger impact in some cases (google around, I don't have time to now). Should people go to jail for all of them? Would you feel the same way if Fitz had gotten a ticket for texting and driving?

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it seems like Hoke might just be testing the waters a bit by releasing the depth chart w/fitz #1. Then he can make his decision depending on how large a stink it creates.

but I will go ahead and beat this horse. A first DUI can be a coincidence, and bad luck. The vast majority of drunk drivers do not get caught. I hope this is the case here. A second DUI is a sign of a serious problem, and a third is a sure-fire indicator of a serious alcohol problem. Such a person needs help, and needs to focus all of his attention on getting this addressed. It looks to me like the coaches have a handle on these distinctions. Regarding gamesmanship, I doubt that it would change Nick Saban's preparations one bit no matter which of our fleet of backs is the starter.

The perfect solution here would be a symbolic gesture such as sitting Fitz for the first series, or at least the first play. I don't think sitting him for the game or even a quarter would be appropriate, but starting him sends the wrong message, no matter how many hoops Fitz had to negotiate behind the scenes.

Sitting him for even one play could make a big difference, not only in the perception of Michigan football, but in reinforcing the lesson that Fitz has been learning this summer. I hope that's how it works out.

While I'm fairly indifferent towards Fitz' punishment (or lack there of) by missing some or all of the Alabama game, I've got to wonder what the reaction would be if someone on MSU or OSU blew a 0.12 while operating a vehicle.

Would we be saying we "trust whatever punishment Dantonio and/or Meyer has bestowed upon him"?

My guess is we wouldn't, and you'd be hearing chants of "burn the witch" from around here.

In this case, it does seem a double standard. If Hoke adds no (or "little") additional punishment, we say it's because whatever he did this offseason is enough. If Dantonio or Meyer does the same, we say it is because they don't discipline their players and run them "out of prison".

Not saying Coach Hoke thinks its okay to get DUI's but it was his goal at a young age to drink every beer in Muncy, IN. Fitz will play, but dont think for a second that it's because Brady condones his behavior.

"Whenever you're in this position, you've got to make decisions that are best for the program," said Hoke, who suspended Toussaint indefinitely in the wake of the arrest. "That doesn't mean for one specific team. That means for the program. It means for the identity and the character of the program you represent."

Do you feel caught between giving your team the best chance to win vs. making sure the players pay the consequences for breaking the law?

Well, I think whenever you’re in this position. You’ve got to make decisions that are best for the program. And that doesn’t mean for one specific team, it means for the program. It means for the identity and the character of the program that you represent. Are they easy decisions? No. Are they decisions you want to make because you love the kids? No. But you have to make them.

Emphasis mine. I also agree that this means Fitz won't play at least one half against 'Bama. After the legal proceedings tomorrow it will be more definite, but I think the answer is right here.

I'm probably reading too much into this, but I also see it as a subtle put-down for other programs.

The handling of DUI and DWI offenses has changed drastically since the politicization of these offenses by MADD, DADD, SADD et al. Previously the state quite reasonably was concerned about driving when impaired. This was the case without regard to the source of impairment. The initial introduction of a BAC level was as a safeguard for drivers against over zealous interpretation of impairment by law enforcement. At a BAC below, or in some states of, .1 the driver was considered unimpaired. Above that the officer was supposed to assess if the driver was impaired or not. Only if the driver was found to be impaired would the officer make the arrest. Now the state uses flat BAC levels selected to molify these political pressure groups whether or not they reflect actual impairment in the average person. Driving while impaired certainly increases the risk to yourself and others. Driving with a given BAC level whether .05 or .15 may or may not cause your driving to be impaired. It would be helpful to this discussion to recognize the difference and cease equating driving with a BAC of .12 to murder. It is quite conceivable that Fitz was perfectly capable of driving safely, of course he also could have been significantly impaired.

The second issue is that regardless of the soundness of the laws that cover DUIs and DWIs there is a reasonable expectation that they will be obeyed. If we assume that the BAC level of .12 was the result of a properly administered test on a correctly functioning machine, then whether or not it was deliberate Fitz broke the law. Here is where the details matter. Did Fitz honestly misjudge his level of intoxication or did he know he was in questionable shape and drove anyway? Was he impaired or simply above an arbitrarily set BAC level? Does Fitz have a problem with alcohol abuse? (Important because changing and alcoholic's behavor is much more difficult than a social drinker). These details will influence the sentence of the court, and similarly should influence Hoke's punishment for violating team rules.

I am conflicted about whether or not Fitz should sit out one or more games. Based on what is known at this point I lean to a two game suspension, but the answers to the questions above could mitigate this to the point that I would have no problem with him starting Saturday. Without those answers I am unable to make a determination about whether Fitz should play. Since I don't have the necessary information, I am comfortable with letting Hoke, who knows those details, make the decision.